it's almost like they hat >> pleased you're here and grateful and i'm thankful as well to senator warren for

hosting this spotlight forum with me. sen. blumenthal: and the really excellent witnesses that we have with us and a number of our colleagues will be joining us. let me just come right to the point. we began working on this hearing a number of weeks ago. simply because we are in an unprecedented time of oppression and intimidation. nothing like it in my lifetime. and likely nothing comparable to it in the history of the country. using tools of legal and other kinds of power, this administration has sought to silence critics and suppress dissent. that overriding truth is the

reason that we are here today. now, last week we saw something really remarkable. the american people stepped forward and spoke truth to power. after jimmy kimmel was taken off the air, consumers, viewers, advertisers, ordinary citizens rose up to condemn the government pressure that led to his removal, and successfully advocated for his return. but make no mistake, there is no cause for complacency here. none. zero. and for anyone who might be tempted to say, well, didn't you get what you wanted? why are you having this hearing? the simple answer is that the

mounting threat to free speech and criticism, public dissent and other kinds of first amendment free expression is growing, not subsiding in this country. and this administration is using all of the tools at its disposal, criminal prosecution, which we saw last week, seemingly unfounded and unsupported, the silencing of reporters who would otherwise cover the defense department, taking them out of the white house as well as the department of war as the president would like to call it, the description of the press as the enemy of the people, lawsuits against "the

new york times," "the wall street journal," "60 minutes," the plethora of action goes on. the affect is to chill frea free speech. and we are here today on one important aspect of that kind of oppression which is the use of the f.c.c. to in effect silence broadcasters and everyone else under its jurisdiction. the simple truth is that over his nine months, the chair of that commission, brendan car rrchtion, has repeated -- carr, has repeatedly initiated unprecedented intrusive investigations against news broadcasters at the behest and probably the command of president trump. president trump was enraged about being fact-checked and sat rised during the election so on

his very first day as chair, mrt threatened the broadcast licenses of abc, cbs and nbc. now, we don't have enough time here to go through all of the baseless threats and investigations against pbs, npr, comcast, verizon, youtube, kcbs and others. in a vivid demonstration of how trump's legal threats work in tandem with his administration's abuse of power, mr. carr held up cbs owner paramount's merger until it settled his lawsuit for $16 million. and mr. carr also used the merger to install an orwellian monitor at paramount, holding out that wrong reporter could invite even more litigation from

the f.c.c. president trump was elated that paramount coincidentally canceled steven colbert days before the merger was approved. in fact, the morning after the cancellation he posted on truth social that he, quote, absolutely loved that colbert got fired, end quote. in that same post, trump hinted, quote, i hear jimmy kimmel is next. three days later trump wrote, quote, jimmy kimmel is next to go. so when kimmel made an offense, a remark that trump found offensive, mr. carr seized on it with a well-crafted mobster tactic on a partisan broadcast, podcast, mr. carr threatened abc and its affiliate licenses saying, quote, look, we can do

this the easy way or the hard way. these companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on kimmel. or there's going to be additional work for the f.c.c. ahead. so chair carr has claimed it's all a misunderstanding. that he never made any threats. but he can't contain himself long enough to keep up the innocent act. he's already moved on threatening abc's "the view," again, an obsession of donald trump. restoring jimmy kimmel is not the end of our fight, it's really only the beginning. the american people spoke truth to power, they can continue to do it, but only with the kind of leadership that we have to provide through the congress,

through your organizations and your advocacy and through the kind of awareness that we need to create and sustain. president trump's censorship threatens our democracy. directly and immediately right now. the not something on the horizon. it's here. tyranny is an immediate real and present threat. and in news rooms across the country, journalists are questioning whether reporting unfavorable news that is unfavorable to the president is worth the bullying and retribution. people across the country are wondering whether speaking out is worth the potential sacrifice. corporate executives are wondering whether they will have the courage and their boards of directors to stand up to the president. universities and law firms, also

targets of bullying, are wondering whether we will speak up for them and the answer is today, your currently and your advocacy and -- today your courage and your advocacy is only the beginning of what we're going to do. we're going to continue this fight, we're going to attract allies, we're going to defend the naysayers to donald trump's campaign of suppression. and silencing dissent. senator warren. sen. warren: thank you, senator blumenthal. and i really want to say publicly how much i appreciate senator blumenthal's long-term leadership in this area and how since donald trump has become president again, he's really stepped up on these first amendment issues and how important it is. so thank you and thank you for having us here today. i also want to say to all of you, thank you for being here. you're going to see a lot of this that's going to look like

tag team. and -- because there are a lot of different senators who come in at different times and we're trying to get as many people in. so thank you for being here. and giving us a chance to hear from you and to ask you some questions. so i want to think back to a year ago right now. what was donald trump saying every single day? he said he would lower costs for american families on day one. after he got elected, the very first interview he gave, the reporter asked why did you get elected, why were you successful and he said, because i promised to lower costs on day one. and now here we are about 260 days into the trump presidency and the cost of groceries is up, the cost of housing is up. the cost of school shoes is up. costs are up for families.

cost of health care is up. and the republicans are driving it even higher. now, that's bad news for the american people. but it's also really bad news for donald trump. so what is donald trump doing about it? what -- where is he putting his energy right now? and the answer is he is leading a corrupt and dangerous attack on freedom of speech and the free press in the hopes that no one will be able to talk about what's going on. how much information can he suppress? how much can he turn people in a different direction on what they talk about? so since the first day of his administration, trump has abused the power of the oval office. he's used it to line his own pockets, he's used it to attack his enemies, he's used it to hand out favors to his

billionaire buddies and his campaign donors. and now trump seems to think that he can trample on the first amendment and use the power of government to shape what americans hear. first was cbs and stephen colbert and now with abc and jimmy kimmel, and as the chairman of this hearing, senator blumenthal, noted, and too many other places to note. so a few weeks ago trump's federal communications commission, brendan carr, was unhappy with some of jimmy kimmel's remarks and he said that companies airing kimmel's show, quote, can find ways to take action on mr. kimmel. or there is going to be additional work for the f.c.c. ahead. and then in comments that look like they're straight out of

"good fellassings" he adds, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. looks, he did not have to wait long. within hours disney along with other affiliates announce they had would suspend kimmel's show. drawing praise from both donald trump and chair carr. now, it's thanks to every single american who spoke out and who pushed back that disney reversed its decision and kimmel's show was back on the air monday. drawing the show's largest audience in a decade. the others relented a few days lairnt and brought kimmel back too after the backlash had happened from viewers, from advertisers and from community leaders. but why did this happen in the first place and one reason might be that disney and nexstar and

sinclaire each need something big from donald trump. nexstar, the nation's largest owner of tv station, needs the trump administration to approve its proposed megamerger with its competitor, tervetion g, in a -- tegna. now, sinclair, the nation's second largest broadcaster, is also awaiting on trump to approve a broadcast deal. and disney needs the trump administration's go-ahead to merge with fubo. so was there a quid pro quo deal here? nexstar and sinclair tried to curry favor with donald trump by shutting down a comedian that trump doesn't like in the hopes that they would get their big deals approved. disney, sinclair and nexstar have reversed course, at least for now.

this isn't trump's first attack on americans' freedom of speech. just a couple of months ago paramount was looking for the trump administration's approval for a huge merger deal with skydance and what do you know, suddenly paramount settles a bogus legal case with president trump by funneling $16 million right into trump's presidential library. according to trump, skydance additionally promised to air up to $16 million worth of trump-friendly ads on cbs. two weeks later cbs, which is owned by paramount, cancels stephen colbert's show and one week after that, after the cancellation, merger approved. trump is not finished shaking down america's media companies. he's warned that other late-night comedians are next. and when disney and abc put kimmel back on the air, trump

posted, quote, i think we're going to test abc out on this. let's see how we do. last time i went after them, they gave me $16 million. this one sounds even more lucrative. let's be clare. president trump and chairman carr are wrong to threaten to censor journalists and comedians. they are wrong to trample on the first amendment. they are wrong to imply that the government will use government power to make life miserable for those broadcasters or journalists or comedians who say things that they don't like. but media giants also bear some responsibility here. if they are bending the knee so they can get handouts from the government, they need to have a serious conversation with their

lawyers. any giant corporation planning to do favors for trump in exchange for gifts from his administration should take a hard look at the federal bribery statutes which bar anyone from, and i quote, corruptly giving anything of value to any public official, to influence any public act. if big media giants get even bigger, by censoring content that donald trump doesn't like, the american people lose. they can't watch their favorite comedian on their local tv station because donald trump said so. they're held captive by big corporate media monopolies that decide what they are and are not allowed to see and then those monopolies that have wiped out competition can charge whatever they want to charge. right now americans are paying

attention. three giant companies backed down on censoring kimmel in no small part because the american people stood up and said, no way. so what does that show the rest of us? it shows us there is power in raising our voices. and that is why donald trump and his lackeys are attacking the first amendment. and it is why we have to fight back. mr. chairman, back to you. sen. blumenthal: thanks so much, senator warren. and on your point about looking at the bribery statute, by virtue of a decision of the united states supreme court, donald trump has immunity for extortion. but the heads of those companies do not have any immunity for violating the law and i'm very glad you raised that point. thank you. sen. warren: even if they are dealing with donald trump. blawm bloom especially -- blawm bloom especially if -- sen. blumenthal: especially if they're dealing with donald

trump. we've been joined by representative raskin. i'll turn to you. mr. raskin: i wasn't expecting that, thank you very much, mr. chairman. so we haven't begun the formal questioning then, is that right? let me pick up -- gotcha. let me pick up on one thing that senator warren just said which is very interesting to me which is the line between bribery and extortion. when extortion implies it's because there's a shakedown saying, you must give me x if you want y. bribery is i'll give you y if you give me x. right? and i think senator warren's saying, the lines are very murky when the president is using the f.c.c., which is an arm of the state, essentially to hold up someone's license or transfer of someone's license or someone's merger until he gets paid off for a personal lawsuit that he's

brought against a broadcast company. it's clearly coercive and a shakedown but if you've got a willing participant, i think it looks like bribery as well. it can be both coercion and bribery. am i right about that? sen. warren: i really appreciate you raising this -- senator blumenthal -- sen. blumenthal: i've tried bribery and extortion cases and it is a -- in a sense they overlap. sen. warren: but the point is, if you're walking the line between those two, you're in real trouble. the other side of the line is not, oh, we're all home free. the only question is exactly who is breaking the law here. because trading the favors that belong to the people of the united states like broadcast licenses in return either for an offer from a big corporation, an offer to settle, an offer of $16 million, or as a threat that you'll be in real trouble if you don't do it, either one of those is a violation of the law.

mr. raskin: it might indeed be both of them. i appreciate very much you illose dating those two offenses. from the standpoint of the people, of course, it all begins to look like a corporate state that is money is changing hands at the high lefts but suddenly -- highest levels but suddenly the president of the united states is the one who gets to appoint who gets to be a comedian on tv and who is not going to be a comedian and who is going to have a broadcast license and who is not going to have a broadcast license and so i noted that the other day president trump described the democratic nominee for mayor in new york city, mr. ma'am danny, as a communist -- mamdani, as a communist and i thought that was curious because all of donald trump's favorite politicians in the world are communists. for example, kim jong un, the stalinist dictator of north korea. whom he loves and he's traded i think dozens of love letters with.

vladimir putin, who is the head of the k.g.b., who said the greatest single catastrophe of the 20th century was the collapse of the soviet union. and the comsars of russia and the oligarchs of russia, donald trump loves all of them. and then of course president xi who trump has praised numerous times as brilliant, a genius, so smart and so on. so i don't know whether, you know, we describe the new emerging governmental form under donald trump as a form of state socialism or state capitalism, but in any event, it's got a lot more to do with vladimir putin and russia and north korea and china than had has to do with -- than it has to do with american free democracy. and i think he's mad at mamdani because mamdani's ideas are all about, you know, they sound to me like f.d.r.-style ideas, we're going to get free bus rides for kids to school and groceries and so on.

but from the standpoint of free speech, the just a very dangerous moment for our country when the president thinks he can irrigate to himself the right to decide who gets to speak in public. so this whole period has begun with a crackdown on the law firms, the president issues executive orders where he says, because i don't like somebody -- something somebody did at your law firm, even if they're not at the law firm anymore, nobody from your law firm can enter a federal building, including a federal courthouse. nobody can get a federal contract and nobody can can get a federal job. some of the law firms, amaze little to me, backed down -- amazingly to me, backed down, as if they didn't know what a blatant violation this was of due process. the right to counsel. the first amendment and so on. but the ones that have stood up against it have prevailed in court. but of course prevailing in court isn't everything if the

federal government is still going to be on your case and i think that's why some of these law firms have decided to capitulate. then they went after the colleges and universities, just blatantly violating academic freedom. saying because, you know, we don't like what we take to be your record on racism or anti-semitism, well, we're going to eslings tierveg your operation -- essentially take over your operation, you're going to decide college admissions for student, we're going to decide who is hired. we're going to decide on your curriculum. that again is a form of authoritarianism. it comes in, you know, different kinds of varieties, but that is how dictatorship operates. so where did donald trump get the idea he could start to appoint who are the official comedians and who are the disapproved comedians in america? he thought he could do it because he was doing it with the law firms, he was doing it with the colleges, doing with the universities. and sending young people here on student visas home because he

didn't like the op-eds that they wrote for their college paper or the rally that they went to, whatever. all of this is authoritarianism. anyway. i'm really delighted that you put this together, chairman blumenthal. and i'm delighted to hear what the witnesses have to say. sen. blumenthal: thank you so much. i thank congressman raskin. i'll introduce the witnesses now and we'll hear from you. commissioner anna gomez serves as a commissioner on the federal communications commission. she was sworn in september, 2023, following 10 years in several f.c.c. staff leadership roles. prior to her communications public service roles. conor gaffney is counsel at protect democracy. a nonprofit group dedicated to defeating authoritarian threats

and building resilient democratic institutions. his work focuses on securing expressive freedom through litigation and other advocacy. robert corn revere is chief counsel of the foundation for individual rights and expression, fire, a prominent author and first amendment attorney, mr. corn revere servef counsel to former fcc chairman and focused on free expression before the united states supreme court. albert dorsey is the founder and lead author of status news which delivers reporting and analysis on the news media, hollywood and silicon valley. prior to finding status, he was cnn's senior media reporter. we welcome all of you and thank you for being here. we'll be joined by congressman johnson of georgia.

thank you for being with us and we'll hear from you first, commissioner gomez. commissioner gomez: thank you, good afternoon. i want to thank senators blumenthal and warren for inviting me here today. i look forward to speaking to you and others present today about the first amendment. as you play know, earlier this year i launched a first amendment tour to fine back against this administration. after editorials targeting newsrooms. across several districts, i've been focused on shining a slight on ways in which this administration's actions have threatened freedom of speech and freedom of the press. the first amendment has protected our free speech since

191791. it was fund daysal to our democracy and today i amihere to tell that you the foundation is trembling after school attraction from our own government. this administration semis intent on using its vast power against anyone who dares to speak up against its agenda. comply with this administration's demands or face the threat of a license revization. the power to revoke a broadcast license is being weaponized. we've seen this fcc use frivolous news distortion complaints and the power to derail corporates. the best example is the approval

of the paramount skydance merger. cbs used a standard editorial judgment in a 60 minutes interview with former vice president kamala harris. the company also agreed to never be before seen government control over newsrooms and editorial judgment. a government sanctioned truth arbiter is now in place to field complaints about cbs's content and edtorial decisions, which will only incentivize cbs to self-ken sure to ensure their journallests to not draw the ire of this administration. there are those who believe if government should use it power. sadly that did in the mark the

end to the administration's affront to diplomatic principles. just recently we saw one of the most alarming attacks in recent memory. first, an abc report was told husband dialogue amounted to hate speech. then they seized on a light-night comedian as a pretext to punish speeches it disliked. that led to a shameful show of corporate capitulation by disney. this was no simple business decision. tv's an act of clear government intimidation. it is important to understand that the f.c.c. does not have the authority, the ability or the constitutional right to police lawful content or punish broadcasters for speech the government dislikes and if it would take the unprecedented

step of trying to revoke licenses it would run headlong into the first amendment but even the threat of revoking a license poses antics still -- ex still risk to a broadcaster. after several days disney backed off. however, some smaller stations did not. these billion-familiar companies are pushing the fcc to reduce regulatory guardrails so they can grow even bigger. that has left the smaller networks in the middle. this encapsulates the unfettered media consolidation. the fcc is gearing up to make major changes that will

drastically weaken the media infrastructure and the number of voices. the fcc has a duty to ensure our media system sevens the public, not million-dollar corporations. not to mention, this will further push independent newsrooms to answer to political masters. the fcc won't need to threaten to investigate individual stations. journalists and comedians won't need to be sense youred directly. they'll sense your themselves. the result will be a chilling effect on coverage, and fewer jobs. this administration has never been around kearseity of voices. it's about narrowing them. take, for example, the plan to defund public media.

after months of attacks, public media is facing an existential threat. while some are admonished, and punished, others are cleared. the government does not have a role in reducing bias for ensuring a balance of opinions but to this administration that has never been goal. instead they seek to engineer a media environment that canoes the government's world view. that is not viewpoint diversity, it is viewpoint control. and we allow the government to decide which voices are allowed and which are silenced we lose the democratic principles and with it the safeguards it seeks to protect. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for inviting me to speak about this important and

timely matter. i serve as counsel at protect democracy, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization with the mission of preventing the united states from declining into a more authoritarian form of government. our work combats abuses of political power. we therefore view the troubling pattern of abus of power at the fcc as a particularly urgent matter. since assuming the position of chairman in january, commissioner brandon carr has used the fcc considerable powers in troubling ways. he's used it to silence political opponents and silenced those critical of the administration. these actions are also corrupt, enriching the president and entrenching power in his administration. my remarks today, irwant to

present insights from experts who study authoritarian behavior to context ewellize the fcc's repeat actions. the regulatory abus at the fcc should alarm those concerned for the future of our democracy. congress established the fcc as an independent agency chose regulatory power is to be exercised in the public interests free from political interference. congress predicted the agency from acting as a censor or from acting against free speech 18. it also predicts from retaliating against free speech and other freedom protected by that amendment. smite these limits, chairman carr has we'ded power in unprecedented ways. he has publicly threatened to

investigate broadcasters because of their coverage of the administration and he's also exploited the fcc's media authority to fresh companies and accept changes from journalistic practices and most recently he succeeded in temporarily taking late night host jimmy kimmel off the air over comments kimmel had made related to the killing of charlie kirk. all these raise serious questions under both the first amendment and the communications act but they also raise serious concerns about the trajectory of our democracy. the abuses of the f.c.c.'s authority are not merely ad hoc responses but rather follow a strategy aspired by hungary, poland and other demock atizing societies.

this regulator exerts administrative pressure on independent media to suppress critical coverage. this is disturbingly similar to what we're seeing lay ma out at the fcc. the goal of this strategy is to eliminate independent media which both enables robust public discourse and serves as a check on the government. this is part of a broader pattern of attacking civil society. by suppressing opposition speech and closing the civil space that allows citizens to organize this gives power to the ruling party. political scientists distinguish between enriching corruption, which funles resources to public officials and entrenching corruption, which uses state power to reduce -- on vert

political checks. the exchange of regulatory favors of compliance in the media falls into the entrenching category of corruption, that furthers the president's control in our democracy. the free, robust and independent speech is key to democracy. chairman carr has shown how this power and trust can be abused and how easily it can be used to undermine our democracy. chairman carr has made it clear he won't continues to go after speech he doesn't like but also declared if people don't like it, they can go to co-congress. i'm happy to be before members of congress today and i look forward to your questions. sen. blumenthal: thank you very much. >> thank you.

i'm cheer counsel for fire. the fundamental rights for individual speech and expression. a nonpartisan foundation that for the past 26 years has promoated a culture of free speech. i was ininvited here no not to represent or describe the official position of my organization but to speak about current controversy involving the fcc. i have more than four decades of experience working on cases of freedom of expression. a number of my cases have involved challenges to a congressional and fcc authority to restrict content on regulated media. i've also served as an fcc official as chief council to a former fcc chairman. and also i've taught at the

kastelic university of america school of law and published widely in this field. based on my experience i'll try to put some of the current developments of the fcc into a proper legal and historical perspective. over the past 10 months, we've witnessed extraordinary formal and informal assertions of power over the broadcast media and the national broadcast networks. the most recent example involved chairman carr's crude threat directed at december any and its networks to take action on kimmel. it semistemmed from a monologue in which the late night host joked about the possible motives of charlie kirk's aanybody? chairman carr's call to take action was followed immediately by abc's announcement that it was spending kimmel's show immediately.

two affiliates, also announced that they would not carry jimmy kimmel live. kimmel's show has since been restored to air, first by the network and then by the group owners. slow rolled approval of a merger between paramount and global, owner of cbs and sky -- media which has since been greeted. publicly cheered the demise of the late show with stephen colbert on cbs, the cancellation of which happened to coincide with the merger approval and has you militiad news criticisms

against those per served as not in agreement to the president or his policies. carr has said that broadcasters are licensed under the communications act to serve the public interests and that he is holding them to that commitment. he claimed the agency is on my gated to act if it sheeves complaints and said he is merely enforcing policies crafted by his democratic predecessors essentially arguing if authority has been abused in the past why shouldn't he do the same. nub of his behavior is normal or permitted by the first amendment. just last october, the supreme court unanimously reaffirmed that the coercion of violate the

freedom of speech violates the first amendment. this aapplies regardless of any authority chairman carr may believe the fcc has over broadcast programming. in authority is distorted and overstated. congress designed the fcc to be independent, bipartisan and to operate within congress institutional bounds. section 336 of the communication act essentially withholds from congress and the law denies to the fcc the power of krebsorship. and the supreme court has long made clear that the public interest standard necessarily invites reference to first amendment principles and that the first amendment must inform and give shape to the manner in which congress exercises its regulatory power in this area.

the only issue about which chairman carr has a point is when he claims that fcc authority over broadcast programming has been abused in the past by democratic commissioners. that's true. it's a fact that fcc commissioners of both parties have overstepped in this regard, although never to this extent. regardless of whether job owning is accomplished, with the erudite sophistication of newton meadows' 1961 vast waistland speech or carr's clumsy godfather impression telling nbc we can do this is easy way or the hard way, it's still improper and inconstitutional. chairman carr used to at least pay lip service to the idea that the fcc must follow the first

amendment. saying to do otherwise would be a deeply troubling to the fcc. as chairman he no longer makes such statements nor does he follow the principles he once espoused. shortly after chairman carr was named to his position, i published an open letter asking him to show restraint in his use of power in a plea for institutional modiste, i reminded chairman carr of his numerous statements that once earned him the title free speech warrior and ask that he put those principles into practice. now, i understand political reality so i never expected him to heed my unspecialisted -- unsolissed advice but i had no idea how far he's go.

with that, i welcome your questions. >> my name is oliver darcy. i spent a decade reporting on media and the information environments. at cnn where i spent the bulk of my acrosser and now in a "nightly news" letter facing the issues facing the media industry. in all my years reporting i've never seen free speech and free perez come under such brazen attacks. ironically it's coming from the president of the united states and his allies, the same people who campaigned to end so-called censorship and bring back free speech. instead, fax-based reporting and even late-night jokes have become targets of an agreed

presidents with trump bullying target to we'd them and the message is clear, cross me and pay the price. one weapon has been the lawsuit. these suits are designed to intimidate those who dare ask tough questions and seek toehold his administration accountable. this is tub troubling especially for those who have business with the federal government. the trump 60 minutes lawsuit for $15 million despite the company having called it meritless. that has emboldened trump. he's filed lawsuits against "the wall street journal" and the nimes. it touches companies as large as paramount but also touches

smaller independent companies. we are spending millions on yumly on defamation insurance not only from the white house but from others who might take a page out of trump's play book in an attempt to silence or voices. it is a necessity to survive in the press atmosphere that has taken hold in america today. i've spoken with countless executives and media executives across the country. reporters on the ground worry about whether the interests of billionaires and corporate owners will compromise their newsrooms. everyone fears that the worst might be yet to come as trump ask his administration push the envelope further and further. the country has just witnessed a

striking example demonstrating that touch and his allies are willing to openly use their governmental powers against voices they seek to muzzle. only two weeks ago fcc commissioner carr wheedled his authority to silence jimmy kimmel. since trump tapped him to head the fcc he has launched a number of dubious investigations into companies, all of which have laurent of alarmed both republicans and democrats. defense secretary pete hegseth is trying to force reporter to seek to prohibit information this they attain without the express approval of the mouse. one, refusing to call the gulf

of mexico, the gulf of america. this is one of the first signs that the democracy is starting to decay. strong men thrive when speech is stifled. that is what trump and his allies are looking to create. thank you and i look forward to your questions. sen. blumenthal: thank you very much. i'm going to ask senator warren to speak first. we thank you for being here today. we're running a little bit late, which just reflects the importance of issue that is bring us here today and turn to you, senator warren. thank you. sen. warren: all right, so thank you all very much. thank you for your testimony, it's very valuable. i want to focus, though, for just a minute on these big media

companies themselves and let's count the events of just the past few weeks. cbs canceled stephen colbert while its parent company paramount wrote a $16 million check to donald trump's presidential library. disney and abc sent although $16 million to trump's library. later pulled jimmy kimmel off the air. nexstar and then sinclair blocked kimmel as well before a public outcry caused them to reverse their actions. these are six episodes suggesting that these media united states giants are bowing down to donald trump and what do they all have in common? they've all been criticized by trump and his communications chairman brandon carr and they all want the trump administration to approve mergers that will make these media giants even more gigantic.

now, in this country, we have laws against bribery. we define bribery as someone intending to influence "any official act" by corruptly giving a public official "anything of value." so i just want to break that down. for any giant corporations that are debating whether or not they should cozy up to trump in return for regulatory favors. so commissioner gomez, ufc a member of the fcc since 2023. you now serve alongside chairman carr. is a proving a mega merger an official act that the fcc can take? yes, it is. so the official act is one-half of the quid pro quo.

now let's do the other half of the quid pro quo, the thing of value. mr. gaffney, you are an expert on free speech. is it fair to say that removing comedians that criticize donald trump from the air would be a thing of value to president trump and to chairman carr? >> yes, it is. >> and why is that a thing of value? it's not dollars. >> no, it's not. perhaps a little abstract but the value that silencing critical media coverage provides and the obedience this also buys is of political value. it both removes an important accountability mechanism that may be critical of this administration and it also closes down civic space that allows political opposition to

develop, to organize and to form. and that's of real political value and that's why aspiring author terence around the world all into after insurance. >> of the six actions we talked about. two of them are clearly for things of value. $16 million we've and the other four at least are of political value and under the law can things be of political value and still count under the statute? >> it's certainly a thing of value. sen. warren: corruption is something we would expect to happen behind closed doors, right? people whisper about it, try to keep it in the dark. not this time. carr goes on a broadcast and straight-up says that the company's airing -- companies airing kimmel's show can find

ways to silence kimmel and he told the fcc we can do this the easy way or hard way. you have spent years studying how at accuratic governments communicate. have you ever heard of anything like this from an american fcc? >> no, this is truly unprecedented. sen. warren: it is easy to get stuck kind of this the sandstorm of chaos that the trump administration stirs up every day but here's one piece of good news that has come out in just the last few days and that is that public pressure works. the american public pushed back on these giants companies that are bending a knee to trump and taking kimmel off the air and we won but the trump administration

hasn't given up. it is still trying to pressure c.e.o.'s and censor its critics and the dominance of these media giants is i just want to say again. i appreciate everyone coming here today. we need to call out the trump administration and call out the media companies that bend the knee and preemptively sensor the people they provide the platforms for. why? so they can get benefits to have even more power in the communication space. blum plume we need to call out the media companies and the law firms that bend the knee to president trump even before he makes the demand on them. we need to call out the

university, anyone and everyone in positions of power that in effect, obey in advance, the first rule of king schneider's book on tyranny is do not obey in advance. and i want to pay tribute to the naysayers, among the law firms, among the universities who are holding firm. and we need to hold accountable those big media companies who are making plenty of money without bending the knee. but i want to just make the point that looking at this situation as one of a quid pro quo implies that the administration is ad ministering the law in a normal way.

this is not normal. this is the building inspector who says to the restaurant owner, nice little restaurant you got there. it could burn down if you don't make payments to me. and as u.s. attorney, i prosecuted mob cases and what we are seeing here is typical mobster tactics that involve pressure on these institutions, not that we should be overly sympathetic to their bending the knee but we need to recognize it is not normal and in fact it is contrary to what chairman carr himself viewed at what was normal and i want to show you what he said. the f.c.c. does not have a

roving mandate to speak in the name of the public interests. there are rules here, there are laws that are being violated, as we speak. and there are rights that are being abridged. but i view the problem as one as to how to enforce those rights in real-time so they are protected, because people can go to court, institutions can try to enforce their right, but it has a cost. mr. darcy, you reported on many of these instances of violation of rights. what are the practical obstacles to enforcing those rights even when they are abridged and i'm going to ask you the same question, ms. gomez, from your standpoint. mr. darcy: i think the challenges from media organizations when you asked how do they enforce their rights

while under these threats is that they are extremely vulnerable in this moment. you have to understand the media organizations like paramount, are trying to compete against the big tech giants that we haven't spoken about it. but tech buying up apple, amazon, some on and so on. and so they need -- they feel they need to merge to get bigger and bigger to compete against amazon, netflix or apple. when they have a deal on the table and that took a long time to get ironed out they don't feel that they have a year or two or whatever it's going to take to go to court to win. and the other thing is whether david ellison wanted to wait a

year or two or gone and bought another media company. so i think time is of the essence of these media companies and they don't feel they have the time to spend tied up in court when they are trying to get these deals done. senator blumenthal: thank you. ms. gomez: the threats are the point, not the ultimate outcome because many of the actions you are seeing at the f.c.c. would be reversed in court because they are clear violations of the first amendment. enforcement action is not appealable. refusing to act on a merger is not appealable unless you get an appeal. so it is the threat and the desire to get an outcome without having to reach a final decision

that is the point in which the f.c.c. is doing. the commitment that paramount paid to eliminate policies and install the true arbiter at paramount were voluntary. i'm using air quotes to say that. they were not a condition of the approval of the f.c.c. transaction. why? was that would make it appealable. by committing they are a pit you lating without having the right to push back. senator blumenthal: you have written about the range of issues that you worked on on relating to the weaponization of federal agencies and abuses of executive power in the trump administration. i wonder how this weapon isation of the f.c.c. fits into that

pattern and fits into the pattern of authoritarian rule in other countries. mr. gaffney: the weaponization of the f.c.c. is a broader pattern we are seeing from this administration weaponizing various aspects of government power to go after civil society. we have the universities, law firms being targeted, the media and f.c.c. and n.g.o.'s to come. what all these entities, they make up a part of civil society and civil associates is democracy's guardrails for two reasons i mentioned earlier, they hold the private and public power to account and a check on the proper power. and creates a civic response that allows competition to develop. they are the sinews of democracy

where citizens can communicate with one another. identify common interests and start to organ develop public advocacy. that happens within a civic society and institutions. when government eliminates them or worse, only allows civil society that is pro government to exist, then you have reduced the ability for political competition to occur and that is that is the road down to authoritarianism. blum plume i defer to my colleagues. mr. raskin: thank you for the excellent testimony. let's start with this. we can do it the hard way or do it the easy way said chairman carr with respect to jimmy

kimmel. commissioner gomez, what's the easy way and what's the hard way? ms. gomez: i'm not sure what that means. mr. raskin: mr. gaffney, what do you tay that to mean? mr. gaffney: it's a threat. this is a clear communications of the actions that the f.c.c. will take. mr. raskin: easy way is you back down now knowing we don't like that guy and get rid of him or the f.c.c. will formally coerce you to do it, is that right? mr. gaffney: yes. mr. raskin: do you have any doubt in your mind that either way that is government coercion and intimidation of a private actor such that you have state action. mr. corn-revere: textbook example of that kind of coercion. mr. raskin: it's a godfather offer. mr. corn-revere: what the supreme court was talking about

last year, kind of that vagueish threat of some kind of unfortunate consequences and a as commercial gomez was saying, it isn't final action of the commission that you can dhalg but the threat is the point. mr. raskin: there is no footprint and can't appeal it but the hard way we'll make sure you do it the easy and mr. gaffney, you enriching. andrew: money or entrenching a particular political view point. you don't have to choose. i think you were invoking this. but donald trump has made sure he had enriching corruption at the same time, right? mr. gaffney: yes. the paramount merger is an

illustration. mr. raskin: spell it out. mr. gaffney: enriching corruption would be use of the t.c.c. power. mr. raskin: 16 million that he pocketed and the entrenching corruption. mr. gaffney: to install a media monitor or bias monitor to agree whatever the f.c.c. views is the proper balance of i had logical view points. mr. raskin: commissioner gomez, you are living with this onslaught of free speech but before that the administrative shakedown against the f.c.c. like the other federal commissions and boards, the f.c.c. has undergone trump's unitary executive purge where they are insisting that the

president gets to appoint everybody so the democratic and independent members can take a walk. he has unilateral control of the agency and use that for authoritarian control over speech and society. i wonder if you discuss the intersection of these attacks on our constitutional system. ms. gomez: congress created f.c.c. to be an independent agency for a very good reason. if it put the authority over the broadcast media which at the time was radio under the control of one person and one party, it would be subject to the whims of tay one person. so it created a multi member expert body to regulate communication. it was very important that it do so and we are now seeing the effects of taking that independence away from the f.c.c. because we are subject to the whims of one person and

being weaponized to make broadcasters comply. mr. raskin: it is operating in this dictatorial fashion. i have one final question, a lot of these so-called setments after these coercive governmental aces involved the placement of truth arbiter, a minder, like an in-house sensor -- censor. and is there any precedent for this in the history of our country or the f.c.c.? who appoints these people, who pays these people and what has the effect been on speech, if any of you have looked at this? ms. gomez: first, the truth monitor tear is appointed by

paramount to report directly to the president of paramount. it is unprecedented that f.c.c. does this. there was an om buds person that comcast agreed to by the media company to make sure the corporations on do not interfere with the decisions. mr. raskin: the job of the truth censor is to make sure that the coverage is not ant thy trump? ms. gomez: field complaints within content of cbs and media bias. mr. raskin: who is this person? ms. gomez: i can't remember. they appointed that within the circle of -- mr. raskin: they are politically correct within the parameters of maga world.

and that person is paid by paramount to be there to just oversee their content -- can anybody tell me what you think about this? mr. darcy: i talked to people inside cbs news and undeniable chilling effect he is from a conservative think tank and pro-maga and cbs news journalist and a complaint is filed whether inside or outside the organization, this man is going to be reviewing this complaint. if you are a cbs journalist and giving hard-hitting reporting on this administration and a complaint is filed your complaint will be reviewed by a pro maga person and up to the executives at paramount. that is an undeniable chain

effect. mr. raskin: i yield back. plume blum thanks a lot. congressman johnson. mr. johnson: thank you, senator blumenthal for convening us for this hearing today and thank the witnesses for your bravery and your work and your testimony today. and this hearing is pretty much about donald trump's move to exert authority and control over the fourth estate and the fourth estate is the profession of journalism in this country. my first question is this what is the significance of the independence of the fourth estate to the viability of american democracy? and what is the impact of

corporate consolidation on the business side of the fourth estate, what impact does it have on the fourth estate's ability to remain independent? and i'll start with you, mr. darcy. mr. darcy: a free press is vital to a functioning democracy. and the consolidation has threatened or made it more difficult for a free press to operate in that to get these deals across the finish line, a lot of these major companies need government's approval. as we have seen, when you have a situation that comes up with jimmy kimmel and nextstar needs or fubo, they are to some extent at the most you have who is

operating the government and right now it's donald trump. and that has changed the way the press reports on government, when you have billionaires owning these organizations like bezos and the "washington post." those businessmen have a lot of work before the government. so you can imagine they might want their news organizations to report on this administration in a certain way or be less combative because doing so could harm their larger business portfolios. mr. johnson: what impact does it have on the viability of our democracy? mr. corn-revere: having an independent press has been an essential pillar of american democracy. what we see with this episode,

there has been a frostian bargain with having the federal government controlling over broadcasting through the licensing process. that has been subject to the danger that it could be manipulated and the supreme court has said that the f.c.c. is required to walk a tight rope between first amendment requirements and section 326 of the federal communications act and the public interest obligations and why the court has always said they have to be very limited. what we see here with this episode is refusal to adhere to those norms of restraint and what has been the legal requirement of restraint. what we are seeing is a test how far those bounds can be stretched. mr. johnson: mr. gaffney, what can congress do to confront this challenge to the fourth estate?

mr. gaffney: in the context of the f.c.c., specifically there is a few things congress could do. congress could strengthen the ability for judicial review of critical f.c.c. actions such as merger aprovals to make sure they are done in the public interest. congress created a similar scheme after watergate when the d.o.j. had apparently given a clump setment to the united telephone and telegraph and gave a donation to the republican national convention and there is a law that requires judicial review so congress could review. the other thing is legislate away certain regulatory powers that have shown themselves of abuse under this chairman and do

not serve a regulatory function. one study found there had only been eight sustained findings of violations between 1969 and 2019. so not an often used regulatory power, but it has been these are what chairman carr has used to go after. congress could remove that power from the f.c.c. mr. johnson: i hesitate to extend my time. it's been very gracious a part of this hearing. i will yield back. i won't be able to ask you any questions, commissioner gomez. plume blum apologies to

congresswoman scanlon and matsui. i ask senator klobuchar to go next because she is on a tight skule. senator klobuchar: it shed light to the public that we knew has been going on a while with this administration and the bullying and the limitations on what people say and the threats which is very scary. i grew up in a journalallism home my dad was a regular reporter with the ap. in 1960, minnesota was the last tate state out on the minnesota race. and my dad called it.

the guy in new york when they called it in to you three guys in minnesota, two wards, be right. and was a columnist and lead sports writer on the vikings and had quite a career. so i care a lot about this. and one of the things i have done to look at how we keep the first amendment protected as we need actual journal iforts. they need to be paid for their content. for years, senator kennedy and i have led the bill on the journalism competition preservation act to allow media to be able to negotiate for a fair price of their content from tech companies which they have not been getting and hurts journal iforts. and when i think about free speech, number one we want to get carr into the commerce

committee for a hearing and i hope senator cruz and senator cantwell has requested that and number two how we keep journalism organizes strong. they are not getting paid for their content because it is getting stolen online and makes it difficult for us to move forward and have speech if it is what donald trump wants us on platforms that he owns or sponsors. mr. darcy: a big problem a lot of these media institutions are very vulnerable and you want to understand why they are vulnerable because they are facing threats from big tech and part of that is due to not being paid because they are being stolen by giants. if they are paid will make them

stronger and stand up against threats. but if they are extremely weak, as we are seeing right now and there is a big bully in the school yard, it's difficult to stand up to that bully? if we don't look at the underlying causes why this is going on, it makes it hard to move forward. there's a lot of other online called "mn post." but supporting these organizations and allowing real journalism to operate has to be part of our protection of the first amendment. want to add anything? or either of you. ms. gomez, thank you for your incredible service.

ms. gomez: kind of a related answer. the importance of local broadcasters and the journalists that work for local broadcasters, what you see on social media is news and people are consuming news on social media is a result of the journalists that work for local broadcasters and we need to preserve the local broadcasters. senator klobuchar: we have news deserts where the newspaper shut down the mayor and they are trying to put their stuff on facebook and people don't know if it is real on facebook. we need these local papers and local broadcasters. thank you very much. plume blum i should have pointed

out earlier we invited chairman carr to be here to defend himself. he declined and we have written him numerous times for answers and documents. he has dodged and so i do hope he will come before the relevant committees of the house. mr. raskin: we can do this the easy or the hard way. plume blum congresswoman matsui. ms. matsui: i thank all the witnesses for being here today. the pattern is clear, suppressing dissent and intimidating journalists and abusing power. president trump and f.c.c. chair mounting a sustained assault on our first amendment freedoms. that's why i introduced the

broadcast freedom and independence act to make it clear that no administration can punish broadcasters for their view points. now commissioner gomez, good to see you again, how important is that congress pass my bill to ensure that journalists, comedians are protected from governmental censorship? ms. gomez: it's very clear that we need some guardrails on what the f.c.c. can do because the ep weaponization of our authority in order to frame and mold how the media reports on this administration is clearly a problem. ms. matsui: the proposed $6.2 billion with nexstar would have control over 265 stations and

reaching 80% of american households. in my home of sacramento, that would put fox 40 and absence10 under the same owner. it reversed course after public outcry. should have never pulled jimmy kimmel off the air. they need to defend the free speech. what worries you the most how this massive media merger could impact newsroom diversity and the protection of free speech. ms. gomez: what we saw with this episode was these billion dollar corporate be mom ocean impose their values. with the loss of a diversity of view points is what you get is

the same values and news stories being broadcast to all of the communities. i received a letter from a woman from eugene, oregon, who told me that there are five local stations that show the news in eugene. four of them are owned by one company, which means they are only getting the same thing that the national company is showing to those localities. that's what our media rules are supposed to operate and how congress told us to regulate in the public interest. ms. matsui: nexstar merger is about half -- well, more than half if they raise the cap. 39%, double beyond that, right? at the f.c.c. you can debate

this, right, and insist you can decide whether you want to lift the cap or not, right? ms. gomez: the 39% cap is set by statute. the fmple c.c. tried a higher limit but congress said no, we are concerned what this will do and set it at 39%. i don't believe that the f.c.c. has the authority to go beyond 39%. ms. matsui: is that legislation? mr. corn reveer you litigated cases. in the four years of experience have you seen a federal chairman publicly threaten to punish tv stayings simply because he

doesn't like? >> the threats behind closed doors or are more subtle. this is more brazen than usual. ms. matsui: what guidance does the constitution give us on trying to silence? mr. corn-revere: so grat filing to see the supreme court reaffirm a precedent saying when government officials make threats including vague threats of possible bad consequences, if the target of that threat doesn't go along and particularly when it comes to the speech of tay target, that is a clear violation of the first amendment. ms. matsui: mr. gaffney you are protecting governmental institutions. jimmy kimmel situation demonstrates how the f.c.c. can abuse its power to silence

dissenting voices. what larger impacts that you see for every day americans when they are serving the whims of one man? mr. gaffney: there are a number of broad concerns insofar as it represents a step towards authoritarianism or a page out of the authoritarian playbook. institutions play key holes in the functioning of our democracy. by sidelining the administration is entrenching its own power. ms. matsui: thank you very much. i yield back.

congresswoma n scanlon. ms. scanlon: many if not most americans are watching with alarm as we see this administration attack the first amendment and try to suppress all kinds of public speech whether it's coming from students on campuses or late-night comedians or through the courts and lawyers representing unpopular clients. last week, we saw the secretary of defense threaten press passes if they report things happening in the press world that were not coming from the department. mr. gaffney, you mentioned in your testimony that we have seen the hungary model or this type of conduct we are seeing from the f.c.c. happen in authoritarian regimes to suppress speech that the ruling

authorities don't like. mr. gaffney: the hungary remarks is similar to the tactics that we have seen employed by this f.c.c. that model again takes a nominally independent state regulator that is. mr. allen: eyed with the ruling part and uses it to target the business side of independent media. the goal here is to sideline independent media that might be critical of the government and create space for pro-governmental media consolidation and expansion and the effect is the elimination of important power-checking institutions and institutions that provide the opportunity for discourse, debate and dissent. ms. scanlon: you only hear what the government wants you to

hear? mr. gaffney: yes. ms. scanlon: sometimes it is not so much sympathy for a wealthy comedian or corporate news media but can you talk about the flip side and the right to hear diverse view points and it's the public that suffers. mr. corn-revere: one of the premisees is the right to speak entails a corresponding right to hear and when sensorship happens it doesn't silence the speaker but did he prieives the audience of what was to be said. ms. scanlon: deprive the audience to hear a joke or criticism of government action or to hear that members of the administration were engaging in corrupt practices. mr. corn-revere: all of the

above. ms. scanlon: that's a decision in the ballot box. seems like a direct connection. i was interested in your testimony about the consolidation of media and corporatization of media and how many voices are in the public sphere and less independent that they are more susceptible to financial pressures and now it appears political pressures. from the advent of this administration we saw disturbing conduct where mr. trump or his campaign sued abc and cbs in frivolous lawsuits but they settled those lawsuits and millions paid to his campaign vehicles or his library. can you talk about the spreshes

of that and corporatization of media. ms. gomez: this administration uses whatever levers of power they have in order to get media organizations to report on the administration in ways they are going to like and impose their ideology on the american people and they do that because these are corporations have financial interests that respond to their shareholders. those corporations are qua pit you lating to this administration. in a cowardly way because they are not protecting the journal iforts and the fourth estate is so important to our democracy. ms. scanlon: it is chilling to see this chilling of public speech. any suggestions on what we can do to push back?

ms. gomez: i was hartened by the outcry of the jimmy kimmel firing. this f.c.c. is toothless when it actually comes to retaliating against these exps. they use threats to self censor in advance. we need all of us to speak on behalf of the freedom of the speech and freedom of the press. ms. scanlon: the reaction to the kimmel suspension showed the pushing back. senator blumenthal: i call on senator markey and then congresswoman balint.

blint blint you are very kind and thank you for convening us, it's a topic that my voters in vermont care about. you've got trump weaponizing the f.c.c.'s power over media markets to silence dissent. that's what this is about. he wants to take away the rights that americans have to consume. they have a right to hear, it's about freedom to hear. he wants to silence critics, right. and we are in crisis here. i believe his end goal is some sort of state controlled media. he went after kimmel and he said we have to go after all the people who are saying critical things against the president and that is totally against of who

we are as a nation. you had six million people tuning in when jimmy kimmel back on the air and 20 million watching on other platforms. people are getting it. they are scared and want us to be fighting hard for their first amendment rights. the underlying issue that i want to hammer once again, you have the f.c.c. misusing its antitrust powers. when one licensed broadcaster attempts to acquire another it has to get f.c.c. approval, and that is huge. it is an independent agency and you touched on this and it should scare all of us. when reviewing a media deal, the f.c.c. has to keep in mind the public interest and consider market competition and that's what we say we are all about, an

open competitive market is in our best interests as americans and in the best interests of democracy and our freedom of expression. the government's role should in the business of picking information. we need to have different reasonable view points so they can play out in public against each other. we don't need the heavy hand of any president and president trump intercreeding in this. americans are counting on us to stand up for their rights. and the f.c.c. is unlawfully conditioning merger aprovals that are not in the interest of free americans and not hinge on a broadcaster agreeing in advance to censor speech, speech

that is critical of the president. so i find this extremely dangerous. i know americans are in agreement that this is a dangerous step that the f.c.c. has taken from trump's demands and stay on this topic. so mr. corner reveer, how does the f.c.c. consider the merits of a proposed merger and how does that compare pressure against paramount and cbs. mr. corn-revere: the question is simple, because the f.c.c.'s authority to control the merger process and approve merger has given it tremendous power

throughout the history. because the mandate is so vague and broad it has manifested itself in various ways. and this has been true of administration of both parts. commissioner gomez put it in air quotes. so that demanding or asking for concessions beyond what the f.c.c.'s actual authority is is something that has happened in the past with mergers. what we are seeing now that that ability to demand concessions is more in a partisan way. but the root problem its the f.c.c.'s authority to is to make these demands in the first place. when you worry about censorship you have to worry how that power

would be used in the hands of your worst enemy. >> you are right. if i could have you touch on commissioner gomez, what do we mean that f.c.c. is an independent agency. what we are seeing from this administration is independent agencies isn't. ms. gomez: free from political interference from outside the agencies and make decisions based on its expertise as a multi member body. we don't have that because this administration is directly controlling us. >> i appreciate you used the word expertise because this administration isn't interested in science or expertise. so look, i know this is about power and control and trying to

intimidate into silence and don't give a damn about our rights and fight every single day and not give in an inch and i appreciate the opportunity to be here in the fight with all of you. i yield back. senator blumenthal: thank you, congresswoman. senator markey. senator markey: thank you all for holding this very important forum. and it's important because the first amendment the right of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, that's the heart of our democracy and protects every other write, that you can write. haste the beating heart. they made the first amendment because that was going to protect everything else. i have been sounding the alarm of chairman carr mob boss

tactics and i'm glad he is receiving the long overdue scrutiny. the day after carr threatened disney, abc and their afill yits over jimmy kimmel'smon log i sent a letter demanding an explanation for its unconstitutional threats. he responded to me with the same ridiculous spin. kimmel's suspension had nothing to do with carr and his comments. just market forces. that explanation is laughable and it completely white washes carr's role in the kimmel incident. in his response to my letter, carr says nothing about the threatening language. like his appearance on the right-wing podcast never happens. we go back to the beginning of

time co-author of every communication. we know each other and we know dramatic change is taking place and you are an expert on free speech. can threatening language used by chairman carr to change their behavior without ex policity explanation. mr. corn-revere: that is a textbook example that the supreme court said vietle the first amendment and doesn't have to be a specific demand. it doesn't have to cite a specific rule. all it has to do is suggest to a regulated agency if they aren't willing to go along immediately, bad things are going to happen. senator markey: do we have to

self censorship that is defectible but very real? mr. corn-revere: we saw with the immediate suspension of jimmy kimmel we saw decisions being reversed and combination of things, the market reacting. it wasn't in disney's best interest to keep kimmel off the air but people cancelling subject subscriptions to them. and commentators are saying it's too far. when there was pushback, the decision was rescinded. senator markey: it's the pressure that no one sees that is the greatest pressure. the chilling effect has instilled the chilling effect in others that will be hard to quantify. the timing here, kimmel's controversialmon log and disney

and didn't take action on tuesday or wednesday morning but after car' threat that they penalized kimmel and his show. carr played an integral role that's why he is spinning this. ms. altman: knife story and refusing to answer important oversight questions about his conduct and evade accountability and that's why today i am sending a letter to senator cruz who has jurisdiction over the f.c.c. urging him to bring chairman carr to answer these critical questions. and i would to turn to one other quit example of weaponization of the f.c.c. and that's the treatment that he gave to the decision making with then vice

president kamala harris, does they interview news organizations? ms. gomez: on f.c.c. should not investigate news organizations for their editorial decisions. the f.c.c. dismissed the complaints against cbs for that very episode and reinstated after this administration took over. senator markey: what's the problem with the f.c.c. investigating news organizations? ms. gomez: a violation of the first amendment and censoring of our broadcast. to answer your question that you asked mr. corn revere, i am doing this tour where i'm speaking throughout the country and i have journalists come to the mic and say if i allowed to report on the administration? am i go go to get investigated by the f.c.c.

that is the chilling effect that this administration wants. senator markey: it is a message to every owner or broadcast or print journalism in our country that they should be careful and not criticize the president. so i thank you all for your great leadership on this issue because as you know carr doesn't treat fox news and their distortions the same way that he is treating news outlets that he believes are antithet call to the trump decision and that can't be omitted and why chairman cruz should have a hearing before the senate commerce committee and force chair carr to defend his actions. senator blumenthal: i do hope

that chairman carr will be before the congress. we invited him here. he isn't here and i think he owes us but even more important the american people an explanation for his overreach and violation of first amendment rights. mr. corn revere, you wrote an open letter after he was named chairman before he did any of this called a plea for institutional modesty in the columbia journalism review. did you ever hear from him? mr. corn-revere: no. i didn't expect to. open letters are just statements and aspirational comments and what i wanted to do given the fact that even before he was

elevated to the chairmanship, commissioner carr was already making statements that they could be threatening. so i wanted to go through that history of his past statements that had respected the f.c.c.'s gyredal amendments to remind him of those and talk about how the f.c.c.'s authority is really limited both by statute and by constitutional limits and to appeal to the better angels of his nature. senator blumenthal: you have a history, you have done scholarship in this area for many years and president trump is not the first president who tried to influence or tried to shape the media. lyndon johnson was famous for berating reporters and richard

nixon tried to use the f.c.c. and other presidents have made complaints. but there seems to me to be a fundamental difference here. the president is using power directly and blatantly to silence crittism. and using the criminal justice system to chill free speech, as we saw with the indictment of james comey. and that others will follow because they had the at the merity to oppose him or support his political adversary. is there something different here in your view that president trump is doing? mr. corn-revere: i think there is. and as a preface to that, this is an attribute to power and has

always been abused whether it is franklin delano roosevelt or john f. kennedy and initiated complaints against right-ring teachers and the nixon administration. what is different about this administration and comparison to nixon is a good one. if you recall back to the senate watergate hearings. nixon had a enemies' list. and john dean said we need to screw our political enemies. it was a revelation and embarrassment and had to be dragged out through senate hearings that this is actually what was going on. that kind of abuse of power. this is more of a celebration and public nature of these kinds of activities where it's written

into executive orders or pronouncements on conservative podcasts